Romney’s shift on foreign policy creates confusion

Boston Globe ^ | 10/25/12 | Nicholas Burns

[Gator113]

There is absolutely NOTHING admirable about Obama.

[octex]

Mitt’s not exactly a foreign policy maven, this is why he has advisors (and Paul Ryan himself is no dolt). But I get the sense that Mitt agreed with Obama on some matters simply by way of argument that so what if we do agree, it’s the economy stupid and you, Barack, are a colossal fail in that department.
***********************************
Agree! The way I saw the last debate, Mitt took every opportunity to bring the conversation back to the economy. He did not fall into the traps that Obama’s handlers had planned and kept the focus on what is more important to rational US citizens; the economy vs. sucking up to Islam.

[gusopol3]

Nick, you missed the most important exchange of the debate, although Scieff really only directed it toward Obama.

Schieff: What is the greatest threat to national security?

Obama: These terror networks

Romney , in passing: A nuclear Iran

Obama wants to play field marshall with drone strikes and high tech special forces raids directed from the situation room(Except when they're needed , like in Benghazi), while ceding world leadership in the ability to project power to China and Russia, even Iran. Romney's "anachronistic view" emphasizes the need for heavier armaments and a very different strategic vision. Obama is a risk taker fascinated with toys; Romney realizes that even to deploy those assets you need strong conventional forces. It's just an extension of their views on the domestic economy. Obama goes for the trendy, Romney recognizes you have to utilize the strengths that got us where we are.